More Alaska Drama

[JoeBob]

"The banner stating "Mission Accomplished" was a focal point of controversy and criticism. Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying "It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew."[7]

 

 

[GernBlansten]

I'll see your wiki, and raise you a wiki.

 

The White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship, who did not have the facilities for producing such a banner. Afterward, the administration and naval sources stated that the banner was the Navy's idea, White House staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN, "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."[8] According to John Dickerson of Time magazine, the White House later conceded that they actually hung the banner but still insists it had been done at the request of the crew members.[9]

 

So, how many ships have Mission Accomplished banners when they return to port? Pullleeezze. Put it in context with Bush's speech who conveniently stood under the banner after making a historic presidential jet carrier landing 30 miles off the coast because they claimed a helicopter was out of range. It was great theater and propoganda.

[Woapalanne]

Thanks, JoeBob, for putting out the facts. Which are in no way refuted by the post folowing yours. It really disgusts me the way the news media puts down the exemplary service of our sailors for political reasons. (Disclosure: spoken by the proud son of a WW II sailor.)

[JoeBob]

Gern,

 

And how does your post make Bush a liar?

 

JoeBob

[GernBlansten]

The post following JoeBob's directly refutiated his.

 

You want anwsers?

I want the truth!

You can't handle the truth!

[GernBlansten]

I'll say Bush didn't lie, but he did catapult the propaganda.

Spoken from a proud son of a Korean War veteran field cook. (buried at Ft. Logan National Cemetary)(This message has been edited by gernblansten)

[JoeBob]

In Gern's world, Bush personally supervised the White House printing office when they printed a banner at the Navy's request. In fact Bush hand-lettered the banner himself. Gern has a cell-phone picture of Bush hanging the banner, too...

 

So, Bush is a liar.

 

Saying it over and over does not make it true.

[GernBlansten]

Sorry, Bush has some responsibility standing in front of a White House manufactured and placed sign, to deliver a speech declaring victory in Iraq, after doing a staged jet landing on a stationary aircraft carrier 30 miles off shore, delaying the sailors reunion with their families for two days for a photo-op. We all know he didn't sit down and finger paint the sign. But his staff did. And if he wasn't aware of it, it just further enforces my opinion of him.

[Beavah]

Easy there, fellows.

 

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that the carrier bit was a presidential publicity and photo op. At the time, a darned imaginative and impressive one.

 

Presidential photo ops and publicity are not lying, they're just part of the job. Yeh can't expect any politician not to market his brand or image.

 

At the same time, it's totally kosher to criticize a publicity or marketing statement that goes awry, whether it's "mission accomplished" or "read my lips, no new taxes" or "I did not have sex with that woman!".

 

No point in getting all hot and bothered about politicians being politicians, or fellow citizens criticizing politicians for being politicians.

 

B

[packsaddle]

some light reading:

http://nation.foxnews.com/joe-miller/2010/11/19/miller-sues-stop-certification

 

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2010/11/19/alaskans_hypocrisy

 

[Woapalanne]

Bevah said: "At the same time, it's totally kosher to criticize a publicity or marketing statement that goes awry, whether it's "mission accomplished" or "read my lips, no new taxes" or "I did not have sex with that woman!". "

 

Hey, 2 correct out of three is really good for politicians!!!

[Gary_Miller]

JoeBob, "Beavah - I support the fiscal elements of the Tea-Party, but I must agree that Miller's behaviour is a disappointment. He lost - rather substantually. Get over it.

Now he'll be remembered as a cry-baby and have no political future.

 

Oops, did I offend the cry-baby group?"

 

How quickly we forget that it was Murkowski who lost the republican primary. Then decided to not support the party choice as the people wanted. So she changed parties and ran as an independent. The only reason she did a write in cam pane is because it was to late to have her name put on the ballot. Murkowski's behavior is much more disappointing than Miller's is.

 

Now who's the cry baby as well as a poor loser?

 

I don't think it's Joe Miller.

 

(This message has been edited by Gary_Miller)

[JoeBob]

Gary,

 

Initially I felt the same way you do about Murkowski's write-in campaign. She lost the primary, quit!

But she has proven her argument that 'more Alaskans want me' by winning election in an uphill write-in battle.

Whether or not more Republicans wanted her in the primary should not overcome more Alaskans voting for her in the general election.

 

I just hope she honors her indications to caucuss with the Republicans.

 

JoeBob

[Beavah]

Yah, what JoeBob said.

 

I think Lieberman in CT and Murkowski in AK point to a real problem with da primary system. In both cases, the party primaries were more extreme than the general public. In CT, the democrats put up a lefty, in AK the Republicans put up a Tea Partier. Each appealed to the fringe elements of the party and were able to win the primary, but didn't hold up in the general election.

 

It shows that the party primaries are generally selecting candidates too far out on the edges. Most Americans are more statesmanlike and moderate, but their desires are not being addressed by either party because of da loud fringes of each. So they spend their time swinging back and forth voting one "bad" candidate out after another, first Dem then Rep then Dem again. Or grab an independent here or there when they can.

 

It's a recipe for a responsible 3rd party to wipe da floor with both of the others. Until then, it's a recipe for polarized blather and gridlock. I'd like to beat partisans of both sides over the head with Washington's Farewell Address:

 

The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

 

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

 

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

 

[packsaddle]

Looks like Miller has the judge on his side:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/alaska-senate-battle-continues-as-joe-miller-gets-respite-from-federal-judge.html